On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 11:56 -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> > technical problems of making a stable, cross ISV ABI are the same on
> > Linux and Windows (possibly even slightly worse under Windows), the only
> > difference being that under Linux there is a large amount of inertia in
> > keeping the status quo as moving to a consistent model would break at
> > least somebodies applications, under a brave new Windows world that
>> Which is fine (breaking of the application), as the benefits IMO far
> outweigh the costs. Simple CBA:
>> Cost:
> some apps will break
> some will need to be recompiled, with some minor source code adjustments
>> Benefits:
> will work with new hardware drivers compiled as .so/.dll linked into
> the base (LAM, Scali, and others demonstrate that you can do this).
The point I was trying to make is this cost reduces to zero when you
move to a new architecture. If ever a ABI is going to be adopted that
is the time to do it...
Whilst it may be an accidental benefit of Windows it's hardly a
compelling argument for doing so.
> My current belief is that Microsoft will create/mandate the model by
> supplying the MPI. Some standards are defined after the fact.
>> I am not advocating mimicing the Microsoft ABI. I am advocating getting
> a single MPI ABI per ISA ABI. The question of course is, which one.
Aren't these two statements contradictory?
Ashley,
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf